In what way is Slashdot a cash cow for them? I've been using it for more than a decade, and never paid a penny. Most of the time I've had ads switched off. And blocked with ad-block anyway. And even those odd occasions when ads have been switched onI've never clicked on one.
I'm sure that describes much of the slashdot community.
It seems you mistake "creative" and "create". You don't have to be creative to create something. Yes I agree "creative" implies inventing something "unique". Create doesn't.
There's no mistake. "Creative" is a noun describing people who create. The "unique" part covers the root word "create" and it's derivatives.
(And also an adjective, but that wasn't the sense I used it in.)
Paste in a text snippet from any article that uses smart quotes, and you get alphabetti spaghetti. Same if you use the UKP currency symbol.
Those are not possibly excluded due to abuse. And even if they were, displaying a string of random characters is not a rational way of having a whitelist.
Those issues should be fixable without a major redesign.
You'd have thought. Yet here we are more than a decade later, and after a couple of changes of management, with a few new features implemented, but none of these fundamental flaws in the classic UI addressed.
Yes it does. Hence "creators" and "creatives". They describe people who make original work. They don't describe factory workers for example. Factory workers are makers, but not creators.
And words only have to be close in meaning to be listed as synonyms. The details do vary.
See the example of `"The East" and "The Soviet Empire". They are listed as synonyms, yet most times "The East" is used it doesn't mean the soviet empire at all.
Actually, that theory has been disproven a long time ago, see Mercantilism. The idea is that the more trade there is, the more people can specialize, the more productive, and everybody is better off. See Adam Smithâ(TM)s Wealth of Nations. Or any introduction book to economics.
What proof? You're confusing global capitalism with "the one true way". That's religion, not science.
Let's not overstate the quality of the "classic" interface. The fact that it still barfs over unicode and HTML is unforgivable. And after you submit a message, you are left in limbo, without a button to get back to where you were. And the browser back button method results in a "are you sure you want to resubmit this form" dialog!
Lets not get misty eyed over an old interface just because it's familiar.
No, Jobs wasn't right. He has several notable flops (Mac G4 Cube, anyone?).
The implicit expectation of someone who makes no mistakes is ridiculous. The fact is his successes far outweighed his mistakes, to a greater extent than pretty much anyone else in the industry.
And he did get lucky - the iPod was sold just at the point where portable music was moving from cassettes and CDs to MP3s.
That wasn't luck. It was recognising an opportunity.
I've never heard of him or the film. But from a quick look at wikipedia, it looks like an independent film funded (at least in part) by kickstarter. So for me that would come under the first category - pretty low.
The only thing that can be said to be lost is the sale's potential for existence (which was probably already quite doubtful), but isn't that like saying you lose a baby every time you use a condom?
Bad analogy. Consider rape. The thing that is taken is the right to say no.
Not to say I'm equating the degree of the two. Rape is always wrong, but the legal right to say no because of bad copyright law, not always.
In other words, Microsoft is going to proceed with a vision which may or may not be of interest to consumers, and once again tell us what we want instead of listening to us.
Consumers don't really know what they want in new technology until they are shown it. Microsoft's problem has not been making it's own product plans, but making bad product plans.
Because storing your private/confidential information in a cloud is a stupid idea, because you don't really have control over your data.
In a lot of cases, yes. That doesn't mean that this particular implementation of a cloud office system is a poor one, nor reflect badly on it's exec, who was doing the job asked.
Half right. It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. That you are right on.
But something was taken. A copy was taken, and copyright law says that you don't have the right to do that without the copyright holders permission. This is something, and sometimes may represent a lost sale.
Depending on who the copyright holder is, depends how much sympathy one may have for that breach of their legal rights. Especially given the ludicrous scope of copyright laws that the multinational media companies have been successful in lobbying for. And, as you say, their own law breaking.
But something IS taken when copying a copyrighted work.
Ripping off some lone artist that's self publishing - that's pretty low.
Ripping off a multinational media company that has used lobbying to extend copyright periods and penalties to ridiculous proportions, and uses to DMCA to take down videos from YouTube that they don't even own the rights to - no sympathy.
Slashdot Mirror
Woz had a plane crash in 1981, and suffered head injuries. He hasn't said much rational since then. Nor created anything of note.
In what way is Slashdot a cash cow for them? I've been using it for more than a decade, and never paid a penny. Most of the time I've had ads switched off. And blocked with ad-block anyway. And even those odd occasions when ads have been switched onI've never clicked on one.
I'm sure that describes much of the slashdot community.
It seems you mistake "creative" and "create". You don't have to be creative to create something.
Yes I agree "creative" implies inventing something "unique". Create doesn't.
There's no mistake. "Creative" is a noun describing people who create. The "unique" part covers the root word "create" and it's derivatives.
(And also an adjective, but that wasn't the sense I used it in.)
I gave you a link with that exact thing on it.
"âthe Eastâ(TM) was a synonym for the Soviet empire"
However the factory workers create the individual copies.
No, I'm sorry, but that's not not true, and no one says that.
The definition of "Creator" doesn't imply uniqueness either.
What professions you you believe the word "creatives" applies to?
Paste in a text snippet from any article that uses smart quotes, and you get alphabetti spaghetti. Same if you use the UKP currency symbol.
Those are not possibly excluded due to abuse. And even if they were, displaying a string of random characters is not a rational way of having a whitelist.
Your explanation makes no sense.
Not that they'll directly ban this, but they'll probably never certify this for road use.
If you check out the link, there's a version that's street legal in the UK, and presumably various other countries too. It's called the Urban Tabby.
Personally I wouldn't all the version they build in an hour a car, as it isn't road legal. It's more like an electric go-cart.
Those issues should be fixable without a major redesign.
You'd have thought. Yet here we are more than a decade later, and after a couple of changes of management, with a few new features implemented, but none of these fundamental flaws in the classic UI addressed.
Yes it does. Hence "creators" and "creatives". They describe people who make original work. They don't describe factory workers for example. Factory workers are makers, but not creators.
And words only have to be close in meaning to be listed as synonyms. The details do vary.
See the example of `"The East" and "The Soviet Empire". They are listed as synonyms, yet most times "The East" is used it doesn't mean the soviet empire at all.
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
You're looking for black and white, where there are shades of grey.
And you Create a Copy.
You don't say "I'll create a copy", you say "I'll make a copy". Create and make is not the same thing. Creation implies originality.
Actually, that theory has been disproven a long time ago, see Mercantilism. The idea is that the more trade there is, the more people can specialize, the more productive, and everybody is better off. See Adam Smithâ(TM)s Wealth of Nations. Or any introduction book to economics.
What proof? You're confusing global capitalism with "the one true way". That's religion, not science.
Let's not overstate the quality of the "classic" interface. The fact that it still barfs over unicode and HTML is unforgivable. And after you submit a message, you are left in limbo, without a button to get back to where you were. And the browser back button method results in a "are you sure you want to resubmit this form" dialog!
Lets not get misty eyed over an old interface just because it's familiar.
Note that neither "having plenty of money" nor being "big wigs" were elements that I said made me have little sympathy.
You have odd definitions. Something that wasn't there before was created to look exactly like something else.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out what you describe is the definition of copying, not creating.
No, Jobs wasn't right. He has several notable flops (Mac G4 Cube, anyone?).
The implicit expectation of someone who makes no mistakes is ridiculous. The fact is his successes far outweighed his mistakes, to a greater extent than pretty much anyone else in the industry.
And he did get lucky - the iPod was sold just at the point where portable music was moving from cassettes and CDs to MP3s.
That wasn't luck. It was recognising an opportunity.
I've never heard of him or the film. But from a quick look at wikipedia, it looks like an independent film funded (at least in part) by kickstarter. So for me that would come under the first category - pretty low.
Copying is not creation. Any academic or artist knows this.
The only thing that can be said to be lost is the sale's potential for existence (which was probably already quite doubtful), but isn't that like saying you lose a baby every time you use a condom?
Bad analogy. Consider rape. The thing that is taken is the right to say no.
Not to say I'm equating the degree of the two. Rape is always wrong, but the legal right to say no because of bad copyright law, not always.
Copying is not creation, as you'll find out quickly in academia.
Something IS taken, just as (to a larger extent) something is taken in the crime of rape. It's not a tangible thing, it's a right.
Why wait till tomorrow? The market is open now, and already has the news. MSFT is flat, so the market's opinion is a big fat "meh!"
In other words, Microsoft is going to proceed with a vision which may or may not be of interest to consumers, and once again tell us what we want instead of listening to us.
Consumers don't really know what they want in new technology until they are shown it. Microsoft's problem has not been making it's own product plans, but making bad product plans.
Because storing your private/confidential information in a cloud is a stupid idea, because you don't really have control over your data.
In a lot of cases, yes. That doesn't mean that this particular implementation of a cloud office system is a poor one, nor reflect badly on it's exec, who was doing the job asked.
Will Satya Nadella support developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers developers though?
Half right. It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. That you are right on.
But something was taken. A copy was taken, and copyright law says that you don't have the right to do that without the copyright holders permission. This is something, and sometimes may represent a lost sale.
Depending on who the copyright holder is, depends how much sympathy one may have for that breach of their legal rights. Especially given the ludicrous scope of copyright laws that the multinational media companies have been successful in lobbying for. And, as you say, their own law breaking.
But something IS taken when copying a copyrighted work.
Ripping off some lone artist that's self publishing - that's pretty low.
Ripping off a multinational media company that has used lobbying to extend copyright periods and penalties to ridiculous proportions, and uses to DMCA to take down videos from YouTube that they don't even own the rights to - no sympathy.